Design and methodology
4.6 Analysis of data
4.6.3 Case study: Analytic frameworks for conceptualising scaffolding
Phase two of the project was interested in looking at one teacher’s writing practice in the classroom. The following research questions were posed.
1. How does one teacher scaffold writing in her classroom? 2. Is there evidence of adjustment and handover for learning?
During analysis of Kat’s teaching practice a number of research tensions emerged. The first related to the difficulty of examining pedagogy as something separate from teaching content. Leinhardt and Steele (2005) pointed out that “divorcing the content from the pedagogy is an artificial bifurcation; in any teaching episode, the pedagogy is in service of the content goals” (p. 90). This project acknowledges the interdependence of subject content knowledge and teacher’s pedagogy (Shulman, 1987). It recognises scaffolding as a pedagogical practice plays an active role in constructing writing content, and reflects a particular perspective on what it means to learn to write (as discussed in Chapter Two). In this research where writing is regarded as a social act of apprenticeship, the analysis focused on scaffolding interactions in the context of teaching and learning how to write a character description.
A further tension concerned the balance between describing and interpreting data when analysing Kat’s practice. When what is observed is presented in “language of absolute, incontrovertible fact, a picture emerges that is sparse, sterile and general, consisting of raw descriptions of teacher and student actions without the connective tissue to relate the actions to one another” (Leinhardt & Steele, 2005, p. 89). Because I needed to encapsulate the cohesion and “connective tissue” to show teaching relationships, Kat’s teaching practice was analysed, as suggested by Leinhardt and Steele (2005), by first sequentially describing the interactions in each Move and then interpreting them to retain their richness and complexity.
182
Another challenge was how to best analyse the classroom interactions. The complex interplay between teaching and learning required the development of a framework to serve as an interpretive lens. Video analysis required the imposition of a structure. It is obvious that you can not look at everything but, as Lichtman (2010) recommends, you do not know what is important until you spend time looking and listening and thinking about the underlying meanings of what you see and hear. And “because your goal is to observe human interaction, you need to decide what to focus on” (p. 169). The research literature on scaffolding theory provided a starting place which allowed me to develop analytical categories relating to: a) the task design, b) the teacher’s mediated actions, and c) the responses of the students.
In recognising that the scaffolding metaphor has undergone several interpretive shifts since its inception (see Chapter Three), the idea of students as participatory learners was acknowledged as referenced by Sfard’s (1998) metaphor of participatory learning, participation and apprenticeship in communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1995) and scaffolding interactions (Stone, 1998b). Students’ active participation, however, is often not explained or elaborated on in the literature; much of the discussion in the research is from the teacher or expert’s position (van de Pol, et al., 2010). There is little recognition of students’ voices, what students actually do or say while actively engaged in scaffolded interactions. An iterative process followed where this framework, which was referenced as the participatory scaffolding framework (PSFW), was shaped by the literature and emerging classroom data analysis. In addition, a framework was used to investigate evidence of a synergy of participatory scaffolding that recognised scaffolding is dynamic and collaborative and that learning takes place over time. This additional framework developed from the data but also recognised the work of Mercer (2008). The significance of a temporal dimension of learning,
183
Mercer believes, acknowledges the “relationship between time, talk and learning in classroom life” (p. 35). He maintained that learning theories often fail to recognise this connection, that learning is a temporal, discursive, dialogic process. This particular framework is referenced as a synergy of participatory scaffolding framework (SPSFW). These two frameworks are explained in greater detail below.
Participatory scaffolding: An analytic framework
The analytic participatory scaffolding framework (PSFW) was developed in response to critique arising from the research and in response to the research questions: How does one teacher scaffold writing in her classroom? Is there evidence of adjustment and handover for learning? The PSFW developed (see Table 6) identified significant characteristics, labelled as participatory scaffolding indicators that related to the task design, the teacher expert and the students’ responses.
Table 6: PSFW: Participatory scaffolding indicators.
a) TASK
DESIGN Plays a key role in scaffolding interactions often as a mediation tool for teaching and learning.
Research literature
Goal oriented • Goals are determined and pursued
according to learning purposes • May involve flexible sub-goals,
which can be introduced as part of the scaffolded design
(Stone, 1998a; Wood, et al., 1976)
(Sharpe, 2006)
Feature rich • Complex but not beyond the
student’s capability or level of frustration
• Designed with challenges situated within the student’s ZPD
• “Designed in”, part of planning (but may be readjusted as a contingency response) (Wood, et al., 1976) (Vygotsky, 1978) (Sharpe, 2006) Multiple, multimodal elements
• Multiple co-occurring scaffolds • May involve various arrangements
of semiotic systems: visual, linguistic, gestural, audio, and spatial
(Gibbons, 2002; Sharpe, 2006)
(Bull & Anstey, 2010; Davis & Miyake, 2004; Palincsar, 1998; Sharpe, 2006; Tabak, 2004)
184
Constraints • Designed to limit alternatives for
achievement
(Wood, et al., 1976) b) TEACHER’S
ACTIONS
Apprentice through use of cultural
tools, actions and dialogue. Research literature
Inclusive, invites participation • Encourages engagement • Affirms self-esteem • Acknowledges individual’s cognitive contributions • Builds relationships (Sharpe, 2006; Wood, et al., 1976) (Eshach, et al., 2011) Makes
connections • To prior learning, understandings, and knowledge • To individual’s social and cultural
knowledge
(Myhill, 2006; Stone, 1998a; van de Pol, et al., 2011)
A model example for
demonstration
• For cognitive processing • Provides an example of…(a
personal experience, written exemplar…)
(Wood, et al., 1976)
Directive
dialogue • Tells, repeats, affirms, rephrases or consolidates • Critically marks (Cazden, 2001; Sharpe, 2006; L. C. Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000; Wood, et al., 1976) Interactive dialogue to explore thinking
• Challenges, probes, and requests justification of thinking
• Poses open-ended questions with an open agenda (Clay, 2001; Johnston, 2004; Many, 2002; Myhill, 2006; Warwick & Maloch, 2003) Provides more
information • Builds on, extends and elaborates students’ knowledge and provides more detail
• Uses non-verbal cues to add meaning
• Introduces new learning
(Warwick & Maloch, 2003) (Sharpe, 2006) Recalibrates or adjusts responses • Redirects or corrects:
- after noticing learning was going off track
- often involving error prompts to ensure greater accuracy
• Meets contingency requirements: - a range of micro level
interactions to address immediate needs such as clarification, showing how…
- assesses progress and monitors • Student-initiated learning by:
- following student interests or questions
- accommodating thinking
(Wood, et al., 1976)
(Cazden, 1988; Stone, 1998a; Tabak, 2004)
(Sharpe, 2006; van de Pol, et al., 2011)
185
Handover • Fading and then handover:
- to develop student’s knowledge (strategy or content) - recognition of learning progression (Pea, 2004; Stone, 1998b) Synthesis or summary of key concepts • Meta-comments gathering information together
• Marking learning to emphasise critical aspects (Sharpe, 2006) (Wood, et al., 1976) c) STUDENTS’ RESPONSES Demonstrate:
Engagement in learning signified by varied cognitive, linguistic and emotive responses.
Research literature
Comprehension or cognitive understanding
• Goals, purposes for learning • Of the task and learning involved
(Wood, et al., 1976)
Active social, cognitive and affective participation
• Motivated and interested • Shows evidence of engagement
and focused learning • Feels affirmed
(Many, 2002; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Wood, et al., 1976) (Eshach, et al., 2011) Offering additional information
• Builds on or adds ideas to conversation,
• Justifies or explains
• Includes non-verbal information by gesture, actions, facial expression
(Johnston, 2004; Warwick & Maloch, 2003)
Repeating • Recapping or affirming ideas
already discussed
(Warwick & Maloch, 2003)
Questioning and
challeneging
• Challenging or querying teachers’ or peers’ ideas
• Initiating further suggestions
Use meta- language related to writing
• Appropriate use of vocabulary or grammatical terms in context • Can talk about characterisation
(Myhill & Warren, 2005)
Evidence of
learning • Transference of meaning, a shift in understanding • Able to share understanding with
another
• Meeting of minds
(Stone, 1998a) (Bruner, 1996; Kalantzis & Cope, 2005; McNaughton, 2002)
Analysis of the data involved the transcription of each videoed teaching session. Three columns were ruled up at the right-hand side of the video
186
transcription and headed according to the scaffolding components of task design, teacher’s actions (mediated by tools and dialogue) and students’ responses. The transcripts were analysed according to indicators suggested in the research literature (Appendix 11). After further close analysis of the data, student responses were added to the framework (PSFW) to describe and deepen an understanding of participatory scaffolding interactions. These indicators provided the basis for analysis of scaffolding interactions. These are sequentially analysed, described and interpreted in Chapter Seven.
A synergy of participatory scaffolding: An analytic framework
This research proposes a further analytic framework, one that suggests a more dynamic, participatory and collaborative metaphor for scaffolding that I have termed a synergy of participatory scaffolding (SPSFW). This framework is based on a metaphorical model developed in response to further discussions on participatory and collaborative teaching and learning.
Figure 5: A collaborative model representing a synergy of participatory scaffolding interactions
The model encompasses the notion that learning is temporal. Learning takes time to embed, ideas need to be revisited in different ways for
A ‘synergy of participatory scaffolding’ interactions Teacher’s actions Task Design A synergy of participatory scaffolding Students’ responses
187
consolidation and transfer (Many, 2002; Mercer, 2008; Stone, 1998a). Therefore, any analysis of scaffolding needed to be viewed across the three teaching sessions, across the recursive but sequential writing process of planning, drafting and publishing texts. The notion of synergistic scaffolding recognises that multiple distributed scaffolds interact and work together to achieve the learning, creating support that is greater than the sum provided by individual scaffolds (Tabak, 2004). A synergy of scaffolds operates across time as in the teaching sessions. The model acknowledges that teachers and learners collaborate in various ways: they interact and participate to negotiate new and shared understandings – in the case of this study, about writing (see Figure 5). This second scaffolding heuristic SPSFW based on the collaborative model recognises that certain elements are key (see Table 7). Recognising that learning requires a synergy of scaffolding and takes place over time (Mercer, 2008) I selected five scaffolding indicators to analyse the complexity of participatory interactions in the classroom. These five indicators provided the basis for further questions to be asked of the data analysed across the teaching sessions.
Table 7: SPSFW: Key indicators for a synergy of participatory scaffolding.
A synergy of participatory scaffolding
Shared meanings: Gives evidence of texts and purposes that are meaningful, with
shared learning goals and indications of students and teacher collaborating, co- constructing and negotiating meanings.
Connected: Involves a connection not only with students’ prior understandings but
also in building relationships and positive attitudes through recognition of all students’ cognitive, social, cultural and linguistic knowledges.
Multiple scaffolds: Employs a range of, and multiple, multimodal scaffolds working
in synergy, distributed across minds, tools and dialogue.
Flexible and responsive: Involves recalibration and adjustment so that contingency
scaffolding is responsive to learning needs but may be student directed.
Handover and transference: Leads to ownership and shared understandings of
learning. Students’ active participation enables transfer of responsibility and creation of new and deeper learning.